Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF DE LUCA v. ITALY

Doc ref: 22741/93 • ECHR ID: 001-11

Document date: December 12, 1995

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

CASE OF DE LUCA v. ITALY

Doc ref: 22741/93 • ECHR ID: 001-11

Document date: December 12, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of De Luca v. Italy (1),

The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights,

constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2),

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

1. The case is numbered 87/1995/593/679. The first number is the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its

creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications

to the Commission.

2. Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply

to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9).

_______________

Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 22 November 1995, and

composed of the following judges:

Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Chairman,

Mr F. Gölcüklü,

Mr C. Russo,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic

lodged with the Court on 21 September 1995 by an Italian national,

Mr Vincenzo De Luca, within the three-month period laid down by

Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the

Convention;

Whereas Italy has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of

the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) (art. 46) and ratified

Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention, Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends

Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention so as to enable a person,

non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a

complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the

Commission") to refer the case to the Court;

Noting that the present case has not been referred to the

Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the

Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) (art. 48-1-a,

art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;

Having regard to the Commission's report of 17 May 1995 on the

application (no. 22741/93) lodged with the Commission by Mr De Luca on

12 March 1993;

Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings

in an Italian civil court, to which he is a party, and alleged a breach

of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, under which "In the

determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is

entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal

...";

Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his

application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,

requested the Court to hold that there had been a breach of Article 6

para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and to award him just satisfaction

under Article 50 (art. 50), namely compensation for all the damage he

had allegedly sustained and reimbursement of the costs incurred before

the Convention institutions, and stated that he sought a decision by

the Court because the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe

was a political body which, given its composition and procedure, was

incapable of performing an intrinsically judicial function such as the

task of determining whether or not there had been a breach of the

Convention in a given case;

Having regard to Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention and

Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,

1. Notes that under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention

the Committee of Ministers has jurisdiction to decide if

necessary whether there has been a breach of the

Convention;

2. Emphasises that under Protocol No. 9 to the Convention

that jurisdiction is excluded only where the Screening

Panel decides to entertain an application for

consideration by the Court;

3. Finds that

(a) the case raises no serious question affecting

the interpretation or application of the

Convention, as the Court has already

established case-law on the "reasonable time"

requirement in Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of

the Convention; and

(b) the case does not, for any other reason,

warrant consideration by the Court as, in the

event of a finding that there has been a breach

of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers

can award the applicant just satisfaction,

having regard to any proposals made by the

Commission;

4. Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not

be considered by the Court.

Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on

12 December 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant